Skip to main content
Glama

Sarb Za

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral nuance: the meaning of could_not_verify (internal failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source coverage). It also reveals internal routing logic (SEC fast path vs. grounded fallback), which goes beyond the annotation hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although fairly long, every sentence adds useful information: example phrasings, when to use, internal routing, return value types, error semantics, and performance benefit. It is front-loaded with the most relevant information and avoids redundant filler. The structure is logical and well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple verdicts, two processing paths, error states, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values, citation behavior, the meaning of every verdict type, and why this tool replaces multiple sequential calls. No important aspect appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters, including the claim example and tolerance_pct semantics (default, overrides, cap). The description repeats a similar claim example but adds little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific example phrasings like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by the return of verdicts (confirmed, refuted, etc.) and by consolidating multiple pipeline steps into one call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', and describes the two internal paths (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline). It does not explicitly name when NOT to use it or how it differs from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Sarb Za toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or redundant purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and the cluster of Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) which all surface trading opportunities. While the lengthy descriptions help, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case with a readable verb/noun structure, and there are no casing inconsistencies. However, the verb-first vs noun-first pattern is not uniformly applied (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs sarb_timeseries vs polymarket_edge_tracker), so it's mostly consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the set is large and exceeds the 25-tool threshold; the broad scope justifies some volume but the presence of duplicate/overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx_beta, multiple Polymarket scanners) makes the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers a wide domain — SARB data, company research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions — with a good lifecycle for most features. Minor gaps exist (no subscription update, no bulk data export), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources